The Deacon's Bench

Katie Couric = Margaret Sanger?

A friend sent me along this item from Creative Minority Report, which notes a commentary by Katie Couric, marking the anniversary of The Pill.

As CMR notes:

In these times of high unemployment and dangerous deficits one issue has become so awful and dangerous to America that CBS news anchor Katie Couric has called for millions and millions of dollars to be spent on solving it. What is it? Preventing poor women from having babies, of course.

CMR calls Katie a “modern Margaret Sanger.”

I know what CMR is talking about. And boy, do they have Katie nailed.

True story. A few years ago, when Katie first came to CBS News, I worked as the editor of her blog “Couric & Co.” One afternoon, I had a meeting with her in her office overlooking the CBS newsroom. Her suite of offices is gorgeous: white-on-white, with a marble desk and gorgeous black-and-white prints on the walls. (Think “The Devil Wears Prada,” and you’ll get the picture. Staffers used to refer to it as “The White Palace” or, more derisively, “White Castle.”) On the back wall is a lovely, dramatic picture of Jackie Kennedy and her children. Other iconic women on the walls included Amelia Earhart, Eleanor Roosevelt, Audrey Hepburn. When Katie arrived for our meeting, I was admiring the pictures, but noticed one woman who was unfamiliar to me. “Who’s that?,” I asked.

“Margaret Sanger,” she replied.

And I think that tells you everything you need to know.

Anyway, for whatever it may be worth,you can watch her commentary here.

I’m a Catholic woman who is saving sex for marriage. Yet I am on the pill and other medication for medical reasons. The pill has been helpful to my condition. I for one am grateful that the pill is legal.
“Margaret Sanger,” she replied.
And I think that tells you everything you need to know.
…And that would be? Though I can guess its nothing flattering.

I really shouldn’t be surprised; yet for whatever reason I am. Very hard to wrap one’s head around artificial contraception as an entitlement (something that “helps” women), but there you have it. A very brave new world indeed.

A few weeks back Time Magazine featured what I thought was an outstanding article on the Pill, and the fascinating paradoxes. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1983712,00.html
I learned something in that article I did not know about Sanger, that her mother died at age 50 after 18 pregnancies, convinced they were the cause of her death.
No doubt about it, Sanger had a real streak of evil in her, but just like Tiller the baby killer abortionist who was the son of an abortionist, one has to wonder how or if God used their “early childhood abnormal exposures to evil” in some mysterious way for the rest of us. I’m certainly not defending the evil of Sanger; just questioning how culpable she actually was. Another thing interesting about Sanger is that she was never really in favor of abortion, only birth control, totally admitting that abortion was murder.
As for Couric, well, I think many of us have known for a long time that she’s the most overpaid, overhyped talking point girl out there in news land. Even worse, to have such an opportunity and to waste it as she has is what she is going to have to live with, having contributed nothing to the greater good of society, unless of course, one counts live TV colonoscopies.
It’s no surprise that she was so mean to Sarah Palin, as is usually the case when the light of life shines.
If Couric really wanted to contribute to journalism and have a favorable place in history, she still has time to become a real journalist, ask the tough questions, and be the only major network to report real news. It would be stunning to see a major network like CBS “go real.” And God knows they could use the ratings, and the country could use “real news.” We should pray for her.
When it’s all said and done, and we are living the life we never imagined in America, it willbe people like Couric, the queen of the big “white castle”, who will be the most to blame. And that contribution will be right up there with Margaret Sangers.

Lauren,
There is never a medical reason to use the pill. Did you know that using the pill for several years can leave you sterile and dramatically increase your chances of developing breast cancer? You doctor is taking the easy way out with out by solving the immediate problem and not caring for your long term well being.

Adequate health care is a basic human right. I think more effort should go toward preventing alcohol abuse in all sectors of the population, and especially among the poor and marginalized of our society.
Instead of trying to prevent poor women from having children, why not work to ensure that the children they have are born to safe, intact, sober families? Alcohol abuse contributes to domestic violence, child sexual abuse, unemployment, fetal alcohol syndrome, health problems, and criminal behavior.
The reason so many there are so many poor people is not because they are having too many babies, it is because the rest of society does not recognize that, in our nation of excess and greed, somebody, not only the children gets left behind.
Catholic social teaching mandates a preferential option for the poor. Not just charity, but justice is required.

I have always seen Katie as a joke. Pushing her into the anchor slot at CBS just confirmed to me the death of real news reporting. She is a master of the head tilt, the voice inflection, and the dramatic pause, nothing more. Unfortunately, that is the case with most of the people passing as “television journalists” these days. Her taste in wall art just put the nail in the coffin.

Margaret Sanger more of less abondoned her husband even though it looks like there was no divorce. She had a number of high-profile lovers in her life, people like H.G. Wells, and probably Bertrand Russel but I should be careful here and not do too much gossip.
Concerning her technical writing about birth control she did write that there was no way to predict fertility so fertility awareness is not a possible base tool for postponning pregnancy. She obviously did not know about modern Billings Ovulation and Septo-Thermal fertility prediction methods.
I wonder what she would have said about this if this had been known at the time? I have a hunch, just a hunch that she still would not give any credibility for this base for natural family planning.

Margaret Sanger was notoriously promiscuous by her contemporay standards (and also by some current standards) and is very racists by modern standards.
She wrote there was no way to predict periodic fertility and stated this was a useless exercise. She knew nothing about modern fertility awareness and natural family planning. And if this were available during her time I doubt she would have advocated it or give it any technical credibility.

Gerald thank you! I remember a while back watching that Mike Wallace video; think Deacon Greg posted it, but could be mistaken.
I want to make it clear that I am in no way defending Sanger’s evil. I just find it interesting when some of the major players of evil have a childhood history of either exposure to evil or great trauma, and the way it plays out in life.
One of the great things someone like Katie Couric is in a position to do that no one In the MSM has ever done before, is bring national attention to the ongoing black eugenics in this country. It’s no “coincidence” that the majority of planned parenthoold clincs are in black neighborhoods, or that 50% of the US black population has now been wiped out by abortion!
Here’s a quote you won’t see by the planned parenthood promoters:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
If anyone wonders why I have such disdain for the politics of our President and first lady, the most pro abort (including late term) whitehouse couple ever, look no further.
I’d love to see Katie ask Michelle or Barack about the issue of black genocide in America, and how, as a POTUS, he can not only stay silent, but PROMOTE even more planned parenthoods. Now THAT would be some real journalism for Ms. Couric; and a worthwhile “cause” for the First Lady. But nay, too “political.”

Blake, there are indeed instances when the pill is sound medical treatment.
I was on one version of the pill for four months five years ago. Why was I on the pill and what would have been the alternative treatment, given you seem to think you have the ability to diagnose perfect strangers based on absolutely nothing at all?
Can you name every single instance in which one or another version of the pill has been used or can be used, why, and what the better alternatives should have been or should be?

As I posted over that the Creative Minority website, it is exactly contraception which has caused the conditions which allow abortion to flourish and contraception and abortion are intimately related.
Contraception has turned sex into a recreational activity. Like life vests and bicycle helmets, when contraception is too inconvenient, doesn’t work or is just plain ignored, abortion is the obvious alternative and natural result.
Contraception and abortion are morally, theologically and biblically equivalent. Contraception has led to abortion and one when contraception ends will abortion end as well. I believe that Margaret Sanger understood that. Sadly, many Catholics who should know better do not.
-Tim-

If you read Pope Paul VI, you realize he rejected the inequality of “the pill,” and it’s potential damage to the dignity of women. Why should ONLY women bear the risk, cost, and worry of contraception? Why not have equal responsibility of men and women? And he saw that completely divorcing sexual intercourse from childbirth would lead to treating intercourse without respect, and women with even less respect! The “third wave” of feminism is the 2010 “hooker” look, utterly without dignity or self-respect. Young women see themselves as meat, not people
Though the contraceptive pill has serious practical uses, for women with menses or fertility problems, that’s a very small number of medical uses. The vast majority use it for contraception.
Margaret Sanger was a racist even by her contemporary standards. Prejudice was bad enough, but the average bigot just disliked and oppressed minorities. She wanted to eradicate most “brown” people! That is genocide.

And yet so very many couples are able to use non-NFP contraception responsibly and never consider abortion even when they conceive while using it, just as many Catholic women use NFP and don’t abort when their method of birth control fails.
I don’t think one necessarily follows the other, nor do I think contraception is the moral equivalent of abortion.
A couple who uses a diaphragm has much more in common with a couple who uses NFP than they do one who chooses to abort an unexpected pregnancy.

Kathleen — thank you for conceding there are indeed legitmate medical uses for one or another version of “the pill”. I grow so weary of non-medical people who insist there is zero legitimate medical use for the pill and that there is always a better treatment available and if your doctor doesn’t tell you that he’s an anti-life liar.
To me, making such claims is beyond irrepsonsible. It reminds me of those folks who insist we should all stop using chemotherapy and/or radiation and/or surgery to combat cancer and should just use herbal therapies and beat drums in the jungle or whathaveyou instead.
My dear friend’s sister was diagnosed with breast cancer (and, btw, the new research regarding the pill, as it has evolved, and breast cancer do not indicate a dramatic increase in risk for breast cancer at all) got sucked into some online alternative “medicine” group and rejected traditional treatment and died at the age of 43 when there had been a very good chance she would have lived had she continued the preferred medical treatment.
Some of these hysterical, cultish anti-pill diatribes are frighteningly full of outdated and erroneous medical information and, frankly, dangerous advice.
Save the medical diagnoses and treatments for the medical professionals. I don’t go to my doctor for confession and I don’t go to my priest for medical treatment. Works much better that way.

SM, you wrote: I don’t think one necessarily follows the other, nor do I think contraception is the moral equivalent of abortion.
A couple who uses a diaphragm has much more in common with a couple who uses NFP than they do one who chooses to abort an unexpected pregnancy.
With all respect to you SM, what “we think”, after the church has spoken definitive on a matter, is really, nothing more that what “we think.” Look no further than the Winnipeg Statement, where all but a handful of the bishops of Cananda “boycotted” Humane Vitae, as well as most of the Americans at the time. They were all wrong, Pope Paul VI was right!
Contraception is a very serious matter, even without using abortifacients. While I agree that a diaphram, in terms of not killing a fetus is the better of the worst (both being gravely sinful), you appear to miss the whole teaching of the point of contraception by thinking that “if it doesn’t kill the baby it must be ok.” Of course it’s tragic when the fetus is killed, but just as tragic is the “killing of” the bond between God and a married couple. The church teaches what it does because to use ANY unnatural form of birth control leaves GOD out of the act, consequently, it’s a profound act of blasphmy against God, who just happens to be the Creator. It also is just as blasphmeous against the marriage of the couple, who are not longer “one flesh” within the body of Christ, but two people misusing sex for their own selfish reasons, with no respect to God or the sanctity of their marriage.
Last night I was wathing an EWTN you tube video with Father Corapi and Father Pawa. Father Corapi made a staement re: abortion where few would dare to go. He said, (paraphrasing), “Not only are contraception and abortion related, but the current meltdown of America is BECAUSE of abortion, with few having any ideal what cloud of darkness abortion has placed over America.

God gave us free will and expects us to use it. What I think and why are more important to God than what someone else told me to think.
Having been given the gifts of free will and a conscience by God, I don’t dishonor Him by blindly following along with what other people think.
My loyalty, first, last and always, is to God. Anything else is secondary.
NFP, in its current, fine-tuned to 99% efficacy rate form, is not natural by anyone’s definition.
The entire purpose of NFP, the way it works, is to use science to separate fertility and sexual pleasure to the benefit of the couple engaging in it.
This is exactly what every other method of birth control does.
It’s why we have birth control in the first place. We recognize the unitive aspect of our sexuality and we also recognize that bringing a child into the world is a tremendous responsibility and there are often circumstances in which married couples should not be doing so, yet they will benefit from the unitive aspect of sex.
Dickering over whether a barrier method or NFP is more “moral” is beyond ridiculous.
If anything, the barrier method, with its lower efficacy rate, is technically more “open to life” than NFP practiced to the letter.
NFP, diaphragms, etc. are not moral or immoral in and of themselves. The hearts and minds of the people using them are the elements that lend morality or immorality to the situation.
Immoral people can use NFP with wrong intent or selfish intent just as easily as immoral people can use diaphragms, condoms, the pill, etc., with immoral intent. And vice versa.
And what anyone but God thinks of how I conduct my private life means absolutely nothing to me. I don’t make decisions based on what other people think.

SM you are most certainly entitled to your opinion. I’m only telling you what the Catholic Church teaches and why. Are you even aware that the teachings of the CC are the teachings of Christ? The CC simply UPHOLDS the original teachings of Christ, not, like many wrongly believe, “invent them.”
You are certainly free to think and chose as you want. I’m just pointing out that what I told you is not my opinion, but the teaching of the CC, inspired by the Holy Spirit, via the one true apostolic church that Jesus Himself started.
I don’t even know if you are a Catholic, but if so, you can’t be Catholic and make up your own rules, as we are all required to have a “WELL FORMED” conscience, which means a conscience based in what the church actually teaches, not what we think it should be.

Yes, Klaire…I’m aware of what the Church teaches and why they believe those teachings are a reflection of God’s word.
I disagree with the Church on a variety of issues, birth control being one of them, and I am woman enough to take responsibility for my opinions, beliefs, and actions. I am also aware, based on God’s word, that I owe allegience to no one but Him and will be held accountable by no one but Him. I take that responsibility very seriously.
I am Catholic, btw.

Women embraced contraception because it freed them from the home. They felt powerful being in control of their bodies. What contraceptives have done is turn women against their faith, marriages and children. What was meant to free them has enslaved them and caused them to commit the ultimate crime of murder in abortion. Has any women felt really good about giving it away in a one night stand or even in a short term relationship. God made women to produce, protect, nourish and create. All contraceptives and abortion put women in captive relationship that requires them to deny who they are as women.

All women who have used birth control, NFP or otherwise, have not had abortions, engaged in sexually immoral behavior or turned against their faith (however that may be defined), their marriages and/or their children.
Some women, however, who have never used any birth control or who have used NFP exclusively have had abortions, engaged in sexually immoral behavior or turned against their faith, marriages and/or children.
Again, we are human beings created with free will and a conscience. Blindly following dogma does not automatically make you a good and moral person, nor does dissenting from any particular dogma or doctrine automatically make you an immoral person.
Rejecting the use of birth control or limiting birth control to NFP does not make you any more or less moral than anyone else. The intent, the motivation behind your choice to use or reject any particular tool (which is all ANY birth control is) is what will be judged as moral or immoral.
Also, many women feel being limited to marriage and motherhood denies who they are as human beings and women.
There just isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to this question.

@ SMcG: “Blindly following dogma does not automatically make you a good and moral person, nor does dissenting from any particular dogma or doctrine automatically make you an immoral person”
So if one does NOT blindly follows the the ten commandments, he/she are not automatically immoral persons. Yes that makes full Judea/Christian sense.

Yes, of course, SMcG, obviously the idea that physicians should treat underlying pathologies rather than managing symptoms is an abandonment of modern medicine, akin to drum circles and sage sticks.
You do realise that incredibly moronic comments tend to hurt the position for which they are offered?

“Also, many women feel being limited to marriage and motherhood denies who they are as human beings and women.”
Obviously. Marriage and motherhood are not natural human institutions like, say, corporate executive or bank teller, or aircraft mechanic.
Our civilisation has been so screwed up by the industrial revolution that a person doesnt feel remotely imbecilic for offering such a claim.

“Your Name”:
My point was that there are legitimate medical uses for the pill that have nothing to do with contraception. I said I had been on a version of the pill for a brief period of time some years back, and you claim you have enough knowledge to know that the doctor in question was managing symptoms (yet you don’t state what condition they were symptoms of…) rather than treating the underlying pathology.
Well, what was the alternative, since you seem to believe there is zero legitimate medical use for the pill. Your claim is that the pill can never be part of treating the underlying pathology.
Well then, what was my condition, why was the pill useless in my case, and how was the doctor managing symptoms rather than addressing the root cause of the problem?
If you are not a qualified medical professional whose expertise has been sought out by an individual whose medical history you are privy to, you are not only being incredibly irresponsible, you’re also not respecting the dignity of the life of that individual. You are also in serious danger of getting sued up, down and under should your uninformed, ignorant “advice” lead to harm.
Dispensing uninformed, agenda-driven “medical” advice such as “the pill is never necessary, your doctor is a liar” is exactly like “your chemo/radiation are not necessary, your doctor is a liar”.
So…jobs such as corporate executive, bank teller, or mechanic are natural human institutions for men, but not for women…?
By your logic, we should all be running around in loincloths, the women back in the cave minding the hearth and offspring and the men out hunting and gathering.
LaVallette, how about “thou shalt not kill”? How many more men and women and innocent bystanders will die as the result of the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into in Iraq? Is it good and moral to mow down innocents in war? Or have they just been reduced to “collateral damage” in your eyes — you know, like they’re not even really people if we can come up with a euphamism that allows us to stop thinking. Do you think all the people around the world who support that war are good and moral people? Or does the fact they ignore that commandment when it suits their purposes makes them immoral?

SmcG:
About the pill curing your medical condition: I’m skeptical of the claim because the pill is simply artifical hormones. It’s replacing something that should be naturally produced by the body, not stimulating your body to produce them again. It sounds like thyroid medicine. It’s not a cure – it just provides what your body lacks.
True treatment would find the cause of the low hormones (thyroid, adreanal, vitamin deficiencies are among the various causes).
You should know that the pill is listed as a carcingen by the World Health Organization.
Your point about using NFP with a contraceptive mentality is valid. It is very possible to do so. However, the growth of virtue is the natural result of the Christian prayer life. Meaning growth in self-sacrificial love, self giving and self forgetful love leads one away from the recreational sex contraceptive mentality. That trust in God and dedication to God’s will leads one to think the gift of a child is more important than self-fulfillment as a bank teller. Only contraceptive failure would lead to growth by those using artificial birth control. The focus is on one’s control and the results of one’s efforts instead of what is God’s will in this situation.
You talk about not all women desiring motherhood. Personally I find motherhood to be the most satisfying part of my life. But there are plenty of ways to juggle career and family. Perhaps society needs to be more open to the needs of all parents (mothers and fathers) alike?
Taking your responsibility very seriously does not absolve you of your sin. It’s a mortal sin to use artificial contraceptives. It’s also a mortal sin to lead others astray. You know this and yet persist. This pains me greatly and I will pray for your conversion and repentance.

Denise — where did I say the pill cured my medical condition? After someone had made a blanket statement about the pill never being a legitimate medical therapy, I challenged the person to tell me why my being on the pill for a very brief period of time some years ago was not a legitimate use of the pill for medical reasonas and what the possible alternatives would have been.
The pill didn’t “cure” anything. But it was part of a medical plan that did treat my particular problem.
The use of NFP in and of itself does not make a person virtuous. A barrier “open to life” as those using NFP. In both cases, the couple may be absolutely willing to accept all children as the gifts they indeed are should their respective methods of birth control fail.
I myself never used ANY birth control, including NFP, and I have five children. I love motherhood, loved being a stay-at-home mom, and wouldn’t have chosen otherwise. But that’s me.
Being the child of parents who never should have been parents, however, but were such good Catholics they bred like bunnies regardless, with us children paying the price, I would really prefer people who don’t want to be parents not to be parents.
Again, I have never used artificial contraception or NFP, and I’m not leading others astray because I am stating the obvious, which is the clear lack of logic behind the Church’s teaching on birth control. Either all birth control is wrong, or none is — at least not barrier methods.
I have seen NFP abused and I have seen it tear marriages apart. I have seen loving couples who are wonderful parents and who used non-NFP methods of birth control to space their children prudently. Sorry, but I’m not drinking the Koolaid on that one.

NFP in its pure form and contraception are anthropologically vastly different.
Jesus had many followers and few disciples. Still does.
Contraception is a slow poison and that is no Koolaid. It is corrosive to everything- marriage, life, dignity, faith, etc. Being a slow poison you can probably have some scattered practice of it without too much damage especially if you do damage control. I say if you and/or yours can not abstain for a week a month do mixed methods and plan to wean off latex in 5-10 years or in your mid- to late 30’s.
In other words have a plan to “$h!t can” the latex (long or cup shaped) ASAP.

NFP in its pure form directly works towards separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality to a 99% effective rate. That means couples who use NFP agree to only have sex when the procreative aspect has been taken out of it.
NFP creates a duality, a dividedness of the whole person. Men look at their wives and only want them on days A, B and C, but not X, Y and Z.
Women are denied the naturally designed sexual rhythms of their bodies so men can use them as sexual objects but not as whole women.
With barrier methods, the naturally designed ebb and flow of sexual desire is not denied to women, and men aren’t forced into the position of using their wives as playthings. Women aren’t made to feel resentful and burdened by their own bodies, which is exactly what NFP does — make her a slave to her body, to charting, and a sexual slave to the whims of her husband.
It’s disgusting, actually — NFP destroys natural human sexuality more than any other form of birth control available.

At perimenopause, NFP means the totally open-ended commitment to abstain from marital intimacy for weeks and months at a time. This will last for approximately ten years, and its end will be marked by a period of abstinence that lasts an entire year.
I have to agree with SMcG — paragraphs 2360-2365 of the Catechism, and their marriage vows, inform spouses of what is moral behavior, and at some stages of life NFP is a destroyer of human sexuality and of marriage.

NFP and Contraception are NOT the same. The reason is, contraception involves the deliberate frustration of the marriage act; NFP does not. In some ways, that may seem like a small difference, but in reality, the difference is huge and very important.
Traditionally, the Catholic Church has always taught that married couples have the right to “plan” their families, provided this is done in a responsible and just manner, and is done with the proper motivation.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: 2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.
So, it is not “birth regulation” that the Church opposes, but selfishness and any immoral means of accomplishing that.
Father Richard Hogan has written: “Some people think that a decision by a couple to time their acts of love in order to space children using NFP is the same as the decision by a couple to avoid pregnancy through contraception. This is a confusion of purposes and means. The purpose may be the same, but the means are different. The NFP couple delaying another pregnancy and the contraceptive couple delaying a pregnancy are engaging in two radically different acts…The NFP couple, while engaging in non-procreative intercourse by making use of the infertile times, give themselves to each other totally and completely as they are at that moment. The contracepting couple withholds their fertility from each other in an anti-procreative act and do not give themselves totally. Remember, love is defined as a total self-gift…Further, the contracepting couple alters either both of their bodies or one of them, and in doing so they violate the integrity of their own bodies.” (The Human Body….a sign of dignity and a gift, page 9)
Author Christopher West addresses the difference between contraception and NFP in his book, Good News About Sex & Marriage:
Suppose there were a religious person, a nonreligious person, and an antireligious person walking past a church. What might each do?
Let’s say the religious person goes inside and prays, the nonreligious person walks by and does nothing, and the antireligious person goes inside the church and desecrates it. (I’m framing an analogy, of course, but these are reasonable behaviors to expect.) Which of these three persons did something that is always, under every circumstance, wrong? The last, of course.
Husbands and wives are called to be procreative. If they have a good reason to avoid pregnancy, they are free to be non-procreative. But it’s a contradiction of the deepest essence of the sacrament of marriage to be anti-procreative.
To use West’s terms, NFP couples are both procreative and non-procreative, depending upon what parts of the cycle they choose to have marital relations. Contracepting couples are always anti-procreative.

I believe Katie Corics mother is// was big in Planned Parenthood and she is of the jewish faith. Abortion is no friend to women.
I am a respiratory Therapist instructor and a student developed a high fever while taking care of patients– it rose to almost 107. I took her to the ER where she told the docs that she took a pill to induce an abortion- it seems only part of the fetus came out. She developed a sepicemia, lost her child and has had to drop out of school. I can’t help but think if she stayed pregnant she could have comntinued and graduated. What a shame!
Thanks Katie, you sure helped this gal.

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

This blog is no longer activeThis blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or:
Read our most popular inspiration blog
See our most popular inspirational video
Take our most popular quiz

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deaconsDeacon Mike Talbot has the scoop:
10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be